lucene-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mark Miller <markrmil...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] merge lucene/solr development (take 3)
Date Fri, 12 Mar 2010 14:51:17 GMT
Personal? Heh. I think you misread my email. Or confused it with someone 
elses.

On 03/12/2010 09:38 AM, Dennis Kubes wrote:
> Don't try and make this personal. That is just juvenile and will only 
> take this discussion (If that is what this is) in the wrong direction.
>
> Being overruled doesn't mean I won't make my opinion known vocally 
> when I think a very large mistake is being made.  And you aren't just 
> overruling me.  Many people have expressed discontent with this plan, 
> but you guys are pushing it through anyways.
>
> Dennis
>
>
> Mark Miller wrote:
>> You have come a long way from "If that means I get overruled, so be 
>> it." Dennis.
>>
>> Its a PMC vote where majority rules. As Bernd noted, vetoes are for 
>> specific svn
>> commits with valid technical reasons. If you guys want to try and 
>> drag it out forever,
>> I don't see much to stop you from trying, but the whole situation is 
>> pretty clear.
>>
>> I, for one, am looking forward to what this merge will bring to 
>> Lucene and Solr.
>>
>>
>> On 03/12/2010 09:15 AM, Dennis Kubes wrote:
>>>  Yes railroading.
>>>
>>>  Many people don't want this to occur.  More than just minus 2.
>>>  Underlying concerns are not being addressed.  Vetos count.  Ignoring
>>>  that is ignoring how Apache operates.  Merging projects is definitely
>>>  a code change.  Getting around it by saying this is a goal is
>>>  fundamentally wrong.
>>>
>>>  1) What prevents functionality be moved over into Lucene within the
>>>  current project structure?  Nothing, so why are we even discussing
>>>  this.
>>>
>>>  2) Why is Solr getting special treatment?  Because there is a lot of
>>>  committer overlap?  Should I propose to merge Nutch in too, lets just
>>>  have one big project, no distinctions.
>>>
>>>  3) Why the big push here to blur project responsibilities? Idk, I
>>>  keep wondering that myself.
>>>
>>>  Dennis
>>>
>>>  Grant Ingersoll wrote:
>>> > On Mar 12, 2010, at 7:54 AM, Dennis Kubes wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> This has definitely NOT passed.  With as much contention,
>>> >> discussion, and debate as there has been on this, saying that it
>>> >> has passed is akin to saying "we are just going to do it
>>> >> anyways".  This is being railroaded IMO and needs to be taken to
>>> >> a higher level within the Apache organization.
>>> >
>>> > How is two weeks of discussion and all the committers on the
>>> > projects minus 2 being for it and three different votes on it (all
>>> > with the same outcome), "railroading"? -Grant
>>
>>


-- 
- Mark

http://www.lucidimagination.com




Mime
View raw message